[Vo]:Have we really got substantial theoretical proof of a solid state LENR
Hi all, I am wondering the following. Is it true that we can arrange, at least theoretically for atoms structurally in a restful structure and achieve high probability of a nuclear reaction. With restful I mean in a way that is not magically forcing the atoms unnaturally close to each other. I know that people mentioning BEC that could be an example of such a structure. The big question from me is to what degree we can prove or indicate these results. I believe it would really be a huge step understanding LENR if we can with a good theoretical basis argue that there is a physical sound principle of nuclear reaction induced by structurally deform and interact atoms/protons with the solid state setup in stead of the usual way to induce nuclear reactions via kinetic energy. The question if these setups are physically possible or not is a secondary question, not because it is not important, but because the number of way's to arrange solid systems are so huge that this proof comes as a natural second step in founding a total theoretical argument for LENR. WDYT
Re: [Vo]:Have we really got substantial theoretical proof of a solid state LENR
I cannot judge whether any of the theory is substantial proof. I can say there is no theory that is generally accepted by most theoreticians in the field. No one outside the field knows anything about the theories. Cold fusion is an experimental finding. There is copious experimental proof that it is a nuclear effect, especially the heat produced per gram of material, and the tritium. It is yet to be explained theoretically, to the satisfaction of most people. Generally speaking, in science a theory is not proof of anything. Theories explain that which experiments prove.
Re: [Vo]:Have we really got substantial theoretical proof of a solid state LENR
I'm not after a theory that is true or not but a fact. E.g. a receipt like Arrange atoms A1,A2,... acorfing to From known principles a good approximation of the system is H(...) Then when we calculate the probabilities of nuclear reaction we get P(system) P(single atom) So, I'm after a mathematical proof or indication from first principles, that you can induce a nuclear reaction this way. A meta theory would then be that LENR might take advantage of this mathematical principle, and a theory would mean more specific how this can happen! Hope that it's a bit clearer now. /Stefan On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I cannot judge whether any of the theory is substantial proof. I can say there is no theory that is generally accepted by most theoreticians in the field. No one outside the field knows anything about the theories. Cold fusion is an experimental finding. There is copious experimental proof that it is a nuclear effect, especially the heat produced per gram of material, and the tritium. It is yet to be explained theoretically, to the satisfaction of most people. Generally speaking, in science a theory is not proof of anything. Theories explain that which experiments prove.
RE: [Vo]:Have we really got substantial theoretical proof of a solid state LENR
How does your reaction differ from nuclear decay? There seems to be some confusion in precisely what you are looking for. If the isotope in question does not decay naturally, the wait can be very long :-) For instance, many common foods contain potassium, which is slightly radioactive - so you can measure the decay rate in say - bananas - with a good GM detector. The rate of decay can be increased in some cases. There are reports of a billion fold increase in some isotopes. (see Bosch, F. et al., Observation of bound-state b- decay of fully ionized 187Re, Physical Review Letters 1996 or the Barker patents. Curiously - potassium is also a catalyst for the Ni-H reaction, but the radioactive isotope is not to blame. or is it? To add to the confusion, some experts believe that the proton decays, eventually - which essentially means everything decays. From: Stefan Israelsson Tampe I'm not after a theory that is true or not but a fact. E.g. a receipt like Arrange atoms A1,A2,... acorfing to From known principles a good approximation of the system is H(...) Then when we calculate the probabilities of nuclear reaction we get P(system) P(single atom) So, I'm after a mathematical proof or indication from first principles, that you can induce a nuclear reaction this way. A meta theory would then be that LENR might take advantage of this mathematical principle, and a theory would mean more specific how this can happen! Hope that it's a bit clearer now. /Stefan On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I cannot judge whether any of the theory is substantial proof. I can say there is no theory that is generally accepted by most theoreticians in the field. No one outside the field knows anything about the theories. Cold fusion is an experimental finding. There is copious experimental proof that it is a nuclear effect, especially the heat produced per gram of material, and the tritium. It is yet to be explained theoretically, to the satisfaction of most people. Generally speaking, in science a theory is not proof of anything. Theories explain that which experiments prove.
Re: [Vo]:Have we really got substantial theoretical proof of a solid state LENR
which essentially means everything decays. On Friday, December 13, 2013, Jones Beene wrote: How does your reaction differ from nuclear decay? There seems to be some confusion in precisely what you are looking for. If the isotope in question does not decay naturally, the wait can be very long J For instance, many common foods contain potassium, which is slightly radioactive – so you can measure the decay rate in say - bananas - with a good GM detector. The rate of decay can be increased in some cases. There are reports of a billion fold increase in some isotopes. (see Bosch, F. et al., Observation of bound-state b– decay of fully ionized 187Re, Physical Review Letters 1996 or the Barker patents. Curiously – potassium is also a catalyst for the Ni-H reaction, but the radioactive isotope is not to blame… or is it? To add to the confusion, some “experts” believe that the proton decays, eventually – which essentially means everything decays. *From:* Stefan Israelsson Tampe I'm not after a theory that is true or not but a fact. E.g. a receipt like Arrange atoms A1,A2,... acorfing to From known principles a good approximation of the system is H(...) Then when we calculate the probabilities of nuclear reaction we get P(system) P(single atom) So, I'm after a mathematical proof or indication from first principles, that you can induce a nuclear reaction this way. A meta theory would then be that LENR might take advantage of this mathematical principle, and a theory would mean more specific how this can happen! Hope that it's a bit clearer now. /Stefan On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I cannot judge whether any of the theory is substantial proof. I can say there is no theory that is generally accepted by most theoreticians in the field. No one outside the field knows anything about the theories. Cold fusion is an experimental finding. There is copious experimental proof that it is a nuclear effect, especially the heat produced per gram of material, and the tritium. It is yet to be explained theoretically, to the satisfaction of most people. Generally speaking, in science a theory is not proof of anything. Theories explain that which experiments prove.
Re: [Vo]:Have we really got substantial theoretical proof of a solid state LENR
Try again... which essentially means everything decays That includes the 3 dimensions of space we reside in. On Friday, December 13, 2013, ChemE Stewart wrote: which essentially means everything decays. On Friday, December 13, 2013, Jones Beene wrote: How does your reaction differ from nuclear decay? There seems to be some confusion in precisely what you are looking for. If the isotope in question does not decay naturally, the wait can be very long J For instance, many common foods contain potassium, which is slightly radioactive – so you can measure the decay rate in say - bananas - with a good GM detector. The rate of decay can be increased in some cases. There are reports of a billion fold increase in some isotopes. (see Bosch, F. et al., Observation of bound-state b– decay of fully ionized 187Re, Physical Review Letters 1996 or the Barker patents. Curiously – potassium is also a catalyst for the Ni-H reaction, but the radioactive isotope is not to blame… or is it? To add to the confusion, some “experts” believe that the proton decays, eventually – which essentially means everything decays. *From:* Stefan Israelsson Tampe I'm not after a theory that is true or not but a fact. E.g. a receipt like Arrange atoms A1,A2,... acorfing to From known principles a good approximation of the system is H(...) Then when we calculate the probabilities of nuclear reaction we get P(system) P(single atom) So, I'm after a mathematical proof or indication from first principles, that you can induce a nuclear reaction this way. A meta theory would then be that LENR might take advantage of this
Re: [Vo]:Have we really got substantial theoretical proof of a solid state LENR
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: To add to the confusion, some “experts” believe that the proton decays, eventually – which essentially means everything decays. And at 60 years, I'm feeling it.
Re: [Vo]:Have we really got substantial theoretical proof of a solid state LENR
hmm, normal decays are of cause not all that interesting, more in line with what you can find in https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/36783/TheoreticalAnalysisReactionMechanisms.pdf?sequence=1 the page with BEGIN QUOTE • Important !! The Gamow factor suppression occurs with the formation of the Boson cluster state (BCS) which may include a cluster of Bosons, a BEC, etc. The BEC case is only one of special cases END QUOTE Now I'm really uncertain how well they have calculated the reaction rates, but my point is that if those numbers are calculated using a reasonable well model, then you should have shown that you can set up a solid state system mathematically and deduce high reaction rate for different nuclear reaction. That in it's self show physics of a nuclear reaction like fusion that is based by other principles then reaching high kinetic energies. Now the actual detailed theory for how LENR work can be different than proposed in that report, and in stead by similarity of principles also give a motivation that other competing theories can work. But I cannot judge how well all this reasoning can be solidified into an accepted principle. So I am looking for some kind of judgement like this theory have been discussed intensively, it have a few glitches but the calculation is right and it mostly look like a sane model Or the author has simplified too much and one cannot do that simplification in order to draw conclusions .. e.g. there is just this report but I cannot find not much detailed discussion about the claims and methods used. But in all finding this link is an important step to engage deeper knowledge how LENR might work form a bottom up perspective. Cheers! On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 5:51 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: To add to the confusion, some “experts” believe that the proton decays, eventually – which essentially means everything decays. And at 60 years, I'm feeling it.
Re: [Vo]:Have we really got substantial theoretical proof of a solid state LENR
Dr. Kim has worked (maybe is still working) for DGT. He has calculated the increased reaction rates that his theory of LENR+(the optical theory) implies. This theory assumes a charge screening potential that reduces the coulomb barrier. for an overview of Kim's theory see http://coldfusionnow.org/session-462-advanced-concepts-lenr-anti-matter-and-new-physics/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL2-l5cWWRE http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/yekim/ICCF-18-JCMNS-KH-Pre-2.pdf I have my own ideas about how this charge screening happens. I will go as far in explanation and you can stand. It is up to you! On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: hmm, normal decays are of cause not all that interesting, more in line with what you can find in https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/36783/TheoreticalAnalysisReactionMechanisms.pdf?sequence=1 the page with BEGIN QUOTE • Important !! The Gamow factor suppression occurs with the formation of the Boson cluster state (BCS) which may include a cluster of Bosons, a BEC, etc. The BEC case is only one of special cases END QUOTE Now I'm really uncertain how well they have calculated the reaction rates, but my point is that if those numbers are calculated using a reasonable well model, then you should have shown that you can set up a solid state system mathematically and deduce high reaction rate for different nuclear reaction. That in it's self show physics of a nuclear reaction like fusion that is based by other principles then reaching high kinetic energies. Now the actual detailed theory for how LENR work can be different than proposed in that report, and in stead by similarity of principles also give a motivation that other competing theories can work. But I cannot judge how well all this reasoning can be solidified into an accepted principle. So I am looking for some kind of judgement like this theory have been discussed intensively, it have a few glitches but the calculation is right and it mostly look like a sane model Or the author has simplified too much and one cannot do that simplification in order to draw conclusions .. e.g. there is just this report but I cannot find not much detailed discussion about the claims and methods used. But in all finding this link is an important step to engage deeper knowledge how LENR might work form a bottom up perspective. Cheers! On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 5:51 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.netwrote: To add to the confusion, some “experts” believe that the proton decays, eventually – which essentially means everything decays. And at 60 years, I'm feeling it.
Re: [Vo]:Have we really got substantial theoretical proof of a solid state LENR
Many thanks Axil! Wow, it really looks like he is really close to show what I'm asking for. Really cool. I have heard others speak about his theory and debunk it on the merit that the BEC have not been observed in room temperature. Then after reading the very good overview it really looks like we do have or close to have a theoretical notion of cold fusion or LENR. Remember if we can say that plain 'ol quantum mecanics allow for cold fusion in theory, I bet people will look for it much more intensely. Why on earth can't people try to find the positive parts and just not be so focused on debunking. My view of this is that in complex materials one get to set up a large range of sites that sometimes mimic what these BEC clusters are doing in Kim's calculations, and dong that right means that we get to see the extra heat that is so much reported. But generally just a small fraction of the sites hence the reason you see it in a complex material like Pd. But maybe Pd is too complex because it does setup a lot of non functioning sites. What Rossi, DGT and all others reporting success may have done is to have performed an extensive search to find a material that can setup a much higher fraction of these sites to mimic the BEC result. It's really not unlikely considering my shallow understanding of the subject. But the screening is of cause an assumption that probably is based on good 'ol intuition of Kim and others. Can work. And yes Axil I would really like to hear your view of it. /Stefan On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Dr. Kim has worked (maybe is still working) for DGT. He has calculated the increased reaction rates that his theory of LENR+(the optical theory) implies. This theory assumes a charge screening potential that reduces the coulomb barrier. for an overview of Kim's theory see http://coldfusionnow.org/session-462-advanced-concepts-lenr-anti-matter-and-new-physics/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL2-l5cWWRE http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/yekim/ICCF-18-JCMNS-KH-Pre-2.pdf I have my own ideas about how this charge screening happens. I will go as far in explanation and you can stand. It is up to you! On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: hmm, normal decays are of cause not all that interesting, more in line with what you can find in https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/36783/TheoreticalAnalysisReactionMechanisms.pdf?sequence=1 the page with BEGIN QUOTE • Important !! The Gamow factor suppression occurs with the formation of the Boson cluster state (BCS) which may include a cluster of Bosons, a BEC, etc. The BEC case is only one of special cases END QUOTE Now I'm really uncertain how well they have calculated the reaction rates, but my point is that if those numbers are calculated using a reasonable well model, then you should have shown that you can set up a solid state system mathematically and deduce high reaction rate for different nuclear reaction. That in it's self show physics of a nuclear reaction like fusion that is based by other principles then reaching high kinetic energies. Now the actual detailed theory for how LENR work can be different than proposed in that report, and in stead by similarity of principles also give a motivation that other competing theories can work. But I cannot judge how well all this reasoning can be solidified into an accepted principle. So I am looking for some kind of judgement like this theory have been discussed intensively, it have a few glitches but the calculation is right and it mostly look like a sane model Or the author has simplified too much and one cannot do that simplification in order to draw conclusions .. e.g. there is just this report but I cannot find not much detailed discussion about the claims and methods used. But in all finding this link is an important step to engage deeper knowledge how LENR might work form a bottom up perspective. Cheers! On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 5:51 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.comwrote: On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.netwrote: To add to the confusion, some “experts” believe that the proton decays, eventually – which essentially means everything decays. And at 60 years, I'm feeling it.
Re: [Vo]:Have we really got substantial theoretical proof of a solid state LENR
The Ni/H reaction in a nutshell… Heat induced Dipole motion is step 1. High voltage/frequency EMF production is step 2. More EMF amplification by nanoparticles is step 3 EMF storage in a soliton via vortex current *whispering*-*gallery mode wave *formation is step 4. This is how the dark mode EOV is produced. Electrostatic field and anapole magnetic field production by the soliton is step 5 Nuclear reactions caused by EMF are the result final. See: http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?f=10t=3200start=6180#p107943 http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?f=10t=3200start=6180#p108048 http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?f=10t=3200start=6180#p108053 http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?f=10t=3200start=6180#p108180 http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?f=10t=3200start=6195#p108539 http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?f=10t=3200start=6195#p108611 http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?f=10t=3200start=5970#p102511 excerp from a post It is well accepted by science that polaritons (a boson) can form Bose-Einstein condensates (BEC). In fact, BEC is the most natural state for polaritons because of their strong interactions through photon sharing. When a global condition of BEC is established in a polariton lattice, gamma quantum mechanical frequency reduction of nuclear emitted radiation is what thermalizes that gamma radiation. Because polaritons are almost massless, their condensate can tolerate temperatures up to 2300K experimentally demonstrated. In a point of comparison, Rossi has engineered BEC into his system after a long and difficult RD process whereas the Finnish startup company Etiam OY has not done this important step yet. As in early Rossi systems, this failure to produce BEC causes gamma radiation to still occur in the Etiam OY system. http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?f=10t=3200start=6000#p102568 http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?f=10t=3200start=6000#p102594 bypass duplicated post references here. http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?f=10t=3200start=6030#p102654 http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?f=10t=3200start=6030#p102701 http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?f=10t=3200start=6165 http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?f=10t=3200start=6165#p107512 On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: Many thanks Axil! Wow, it really looks like he is really close to show what I'm asking for. Really cool. I have heard others speak about his theory and debunk it on the merit that the BEC have not been observed in room temperature. Then after reading the very good overview it really looks like we do have or close to have a theoretical notion of cold fusion or LENR. Remember if we can say that plain 'ol quantum mecanics allow for cold fusion in theory, I bet people will look for it much more intensely. Why on earth can't people try to find the positive parts and just not be so focused on debunking. My view of this is that in complex materials one get to set up a large range of sites that sometimes mimic what these BEC clusters are doing in Kim's calculations, and dong that right means that we get to see the extra heat that is so much reported. But generally just a small fraction of the sites hence the reason you see it in a complex material like Pd. But maybe Pd is too complex because it does setup a lot of non functioning sites. What Rossi, DGT and all others reporting success may have done is to have performed an extensive search to find a material that can setup a much higher fraction of these sites to mimic the BEC result. It's really not unlikely considering my shallow understanding of the subject. But the screening is of cause an assumption that probably is based on good 'ol intuition of Kim and others. Can work. And yes Axil I would really like to hear your view of it. /Stefan On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Dr. Kim has worked (maybe is still working) for DGT. He has calculated the increased reaction rates that his theory of LENR+(the optical theory) implies. This theory assumes a charge screening potential that reduces the coulomb barrier. for an overview of Kim's theory see http://coldfusionnow.org/session-462-advanced-concepts-lenr-anti-matter-and-new-physics/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL2-l5cWWRE http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/yekim/ICCF-18-JCMNS-KH-Pre-2.pdf I have my own ideas about how this charge screening happens. I will go as far in explanation and you can stand. It is up to you! On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: hmm, normal decays are of cause not all that interesting, more in line with what you can find in
